簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 劉家秀
Liu, Chia-Hsiu
論文名稱: 以服務設計概念模型探討產學合作
A Service Design Conceptual Framework of University-Industry Collaboration
指導教授: 陳建旭
Chen, Chien-Hsu
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系
Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年: 2018
畢業學年度: 107
語文別: 英文
論文頁數: 91
中文關鍵詞: 服務設計服務藍圖技術移轉生態圈學術創業利益關係者
外文關鍵詞: service design, service blueprint, technology transfer ecosystem, academic entrepreneurship, stakeholders
相關次數: 點閱:151下載:0
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 近年來,高速的創新科技主導著全球社會與經濟發展,各國政府透過與大學合作進行技術移轉(Technology Transfer)將技術商品化、培養創新創業氛圍與鼓勵創業等措施達成經濟成長的驅力。「學術創業(Academic Entrepreneur)」一詞,為了將此概念具體化而被提出,同時全球有許多大學已經或者正在從「研究型大學」轉型為「創業型大學」(Entrepreneurial University),達到整合經濟與社會發展之任務。大學角色的轉變,讓產業界、學術界與政府三方共同參與研究型大學的轉型,其中大學裡的技術移轉單位,為將技術創新商業化(Innovation Commercialization)的主要角色,透過技轉單位作為媒介,將學術界之研究成果轉化為有價值潛力的專利,並進一步將其專利透過學術創業或者授權等商業模式,開發成商品並推廣至市場,產官學界的緊密互動,逐漸形成一個龐大的生態系(Ecosystem)。
    在此生態系中所形成的技轉服務模式,需要許多不同的利益關係者(Stakeholder)共同合作參與所組成,在這些互動中,利益關係者間對於相同的計畫常各有立場與考量,在要達成更有效率及精準的成效,需要有相互了解及良好溝通合作,才能發揮最大產能。過去研究將技術移轉的相關活動與學術創業,透過組織管理學或者社會科學的角度分析其脈絡,並未曾以生態系的角度考量不同利益關係者的文化與立場,導致難以全盤考量並瞭解利益關係者間的不同需求。為了能夠系統性瞭解技轉單位之服務流程,本篇論文採用服務設計來探討產學合作,由於服務設計方法能夠系統性考量他的整體流程和軟硬體,藉此能協助相關的利益關係者(包含政府、企業、研發的學者和學校),達到彼此之間雙贏或多贏的機會。這是本研究最主要的概念跟目的。然而,現有的服務設計工具以及分析無法直接這樣套用,因此,本研究的透過修該現有的服務設計工具,提出一個架構模型,並且以成功大學整體產學合作的發展歷史,並訪談相關的人,運用我提出的架構模型,去做出這張流程圖。
    本研究採用服務設計(service design) 研究的方法,檢視國立成功大學技轉育成中心之成長脈絡,並架構概念模型分析過去、現在與未來的轉變,提出三點該模型與過去研究方法不同之特點,(一)該模型具有能將具產學與技轉生態系中(TT&AE)的流程,透過時間軸表現出具有不同元素的脈絡,(二)以視覺化的方式凸顯問題點的互動性,(三)透過利益關係者地圖(Stakeholder Maps)視覺化具體呈現存在的問題,並在成大為個案之脈動中,找其經驗汲取與結合現有未考量的觀點,作為未來決策思考之脈絡,發現收斂及聚合之營運模式,並且發現中心的營運十年為一個循環之概念,最後為該中心規劃未來技轉國際化所應考量的要點與建議。

    In recent years, the development of the economy is led by innovations. As a result, governments around the world have started to commercialize technology through licensing, cultivating innovation, and encouraging entrepreneurship to achieve economic growth. In order to clarify the concept, the term “Academic Entrepreneur” was raised. In the same time, more and more universities had become or are going to become Entrepreneurial University with the responsibility to integrate the economic and social development. The changing role of the university allows government, industry, and academia all become coordinators to realize the ideal Entrepreneurial University. Technology Transfer Office (TTO) in universities plays a critical role in translating scientific research into patents with value potential. Meanwhile, the patents can be developed into the commodities and promoted to the market. The closed interaction among government, industry and academia has gradually formed a huge ecosystem.
    The service offered by TTO and from the concept of academic entrepreneurship requires the involvement of various stakeholders. Among the interactions between the stakeholders, they have different considerations and viewpoints to the same project. In the prior researches, most of them discuss the topics of technology transfer or academic entrepreneurship respectively. They are seldom mentioned in a holistic way as ecosystem. Thus, it is difficult to consider the different culture and needs among various stakeholders as a whole. In order to achieve the ideal result in a systematic way, the collaboration between the stakeholders requires mutual understanding and good communication to maximize the capacity.
    The main purpose of this research is to adopt the viewpoint of service design research, and examine the growth and development of the successful university technology transfer center. A conceptual model is constructed to analyze the past, present and future changes. Three different characteristics are found by my model, which are different from those by the past research methods. Firstly, the model presents the process in technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Moreover, it is able to show different elements of the contexts, including time, physical evidence, goal and value, service, and stakeholders map. Secondly, the diagram shows the interaction of the problems through visualized method. Thirdly, through stakeholders map, the practitioners are able to visualize the existing but hidden problems, which are unable to figure out in the first view. Furthermore, the conceptual model is applied to a case study, which provides a further chance to test the model. I find there is a ten-year circular operation model and also a convergent and divergent mode of the organization. Eventually, the conceptual model and the case study provide the points and suggestions, which should be considered by TTO in the future.

    摘要................................................................................................................................... i SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... v TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ x LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xi LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................. xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 13 1.1 Research Background and Motivation ................................................................ 13 1.2 Research Purpose ............................................................................................... 16 1.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................ 17 1.4 Research Contribution ........................................................................................ 17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 18 2.1 University-Industry Collaboration ...................................................................... 18 2.1.1 Theories of University-Industry Collaboration ......................................... 18 2.1.2 The importance of clarifying stakeholders in the context of UIC .............. 19 2.2 Technology Transfer Ecosystem ........................................................................ 19 2.2.1 Theories of Technology Transfer ............................................................. 20 2.2.2 Technology Transfer Ecosystem .............................................................. 23 2.2.3 Two Cases of Technology Transfer Framework in TT Ecosystem ........... 25 2.2.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 27 2.3 Academic Entrepreneurship ............................................................................... 28 2.3.1 Changing Modes of the Knowledge and the Appearance of Academic Entrepreneurship .............................................................................................. 28 2.3.2 University-Industry Collaboration in Entrepreneurial University ............. 29 2.3.3 Different Channels of University-Industry Collaboration ......................... 32 2.3.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 34 2.4 TT Ecosystem and Academic Entrepreneurship: University-Industry Collaboration ........................................................................................................... 35 2.4.1 Stakeholders in TT Ecosystem and Academic Entrepreneurship .............. 35 2.5 Service Design Methods ..................................................................................... 38 2.5.1 Contextual Design: General Background ................................................. 40 2.5.2 Contextual Interview ............................................................................... 42 2.5.3 Stakeholder Maps .................................................................................... 42 2.5.4 Service Blueprint ..................................................................................... 43 2.5.5 Scenario Description Swimlanes .............................................................. 43 2.5.6 Conclusion .............................................................................................. 44 CHAPTER 3 Methodology .............................................................................................. 45 3.1 Phase 1: Explore, collect data, and define ........................................................... 46 3.1.1 Semi-structured interview ........................................................................ 47 3.1.2 Stakeholder maps .................................................................................... 48 3.1.3 Projects and Data Analysis ...................................................................... 49 3.2 Phase 2: Concept development ........................................................................... 49 3.2.1 Culture Model in Contextual Design ........................................................ 49 3.2.2 Service blueprint ..................................................................................... 50 3.3 Phase 3: Conceptual Model Creation .................................................................. 51 CHAPTER 4 Results and analysis ................................................................................... 52 4.1 Case Study ......................................................................................................... 52 4.2 Descriptive Statistics Data Analysis ................................................................... 52 4.3 Definition and Introduction of TT&AE Conceptual Model ................................. 58 4.3.1 Stakeholders in TT ecosystem analyzing by stakeholder maps ................. 58 4.3.2 Stakeholders in TT ecosystem analyzing by culture model ...................... 59 4.3.3 The synthesizing of stakeholder maps and culture model ......................... 59 4.3.4 The example of service blueprint in TT ecosystem .................................. 60 4.3.5 TT&AE Conceptual Model...................................................................... 63 4.4 The result of TT&AE Conceptual Model in the case study ................................. 64 4.4.1 The first phase of building up TT&AE ecosystem from 1996 to 2007 ...... 65 4.4.2 The second phase of building up TT&AE ecosystem from 2008 to 2018 . 66 4.4.3 The conclusion of the first and second phases of building up TT&AE ecosystem ........................................................................................................ 68 CHAPTER 5 conclusions and discussions ....................................................................... 70 5.1 Discussion.......................................................................................................... 70 5.1.1 The feature of using a timeline................................................................. 70 5.1.2 The feature of the visualization in the timeline ......................................... 71 5.1.3 The feature of visualizing touchpoints ..................................................... 71 5.2 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 77 5.2.1 The contributions of TT&AE Conceptual Model ..................................... 77 5.2.2 TT&AE Conceptual Model in the Future ................................................. 78 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 79 Introduction of The technical univeristy of MUNICH .................................. 90 A.1 Innovation of TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH............................... 90 A.1.1 TUM entrepreneurship Education .......................................................... 90

    成功大學主管會報(2012年,8月8日). 國立成功大學技轉育成中心進駐企業回饋
    要點. 取自http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=53
    成功大學研究總中心(2018). 研究總中心簡介. 取自
    http://rsh.ncku.edu.tw/p/412-1033-3912.php?Lang=zh-tw
    成功大學技轉育成中心(2018).技轉育成中心介紹. 取自
    http://ttbic.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/p/412-1085-10721.php?Lang=zh-tw
    林天柱(2010). 成功大學產學合作經營之道與發展遠景. 取自
    http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=4&serno=33
    林天柱(2011). 蛻變,先從制度完備做起—淺談大專院校產學合作. 取自。
    http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?mcateid=65&serno=11
    南部科學園區產學協會(2018).南科產學協會簡介. 取自
    https://www.aicsp.org.tw/index.php
    陳素琴(2013). 創業精神與大學發展. 教育研究與發展期刊,9(3),87-114
    陳曉莉(2000,4月14日). 成大將設立成鑫、大德創投,募集3至6億台幣投資通
    訊、光電. 取自https://www.ithome.com.tw/news/1242
    鄭昱芸(2011). 南科育成中心,「她」抓得住我!.
    http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=45
    鄭昱芸、翁翠霞(2011). 與時俱進的成功大學技轉育成中心. http://webap.rsh.ncku.edu.tw/mag/article_view.php?cateid=1&serno=53
    薛欣怡(2015).歐洲創業型大學發展研究:以德國慕尼黑工業大學為例(未發表
    的博士論文).國立中山大學教育研究所。
    羅德禎(2014,5月6日). 以熱忱服務媒合產學合作,良性循環創造雙贏. 取自
    http://www.niia.tw/share_detail.aspx?NO=57
    Abiteboul, S. (1997, January). Querying semi-structured data. In International Conference
    on Database Theory (pp. 1-18). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2009). Knowledge exchange
    between academics and the business, public and third sectors. University of
    Cambridge; Imperial College London.
    Abreu, M., & Grinevich, V. (2013). The nature of academic entrepreneurship in the UK:
    Widening the focus on entrepreneurial activities. Research Policy, 42(2), 408-422.
    Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., & Szerb, L. (2014). National systems of entrepreneurship:
    Measurement issues and policy implications. Research Policy, 43(3), 476-494.
    Aldrich, H. E. (2012). The emergence of entrepreneurship as an academic field: A personal
    essay on institutional entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 41(7), 1240-1248.
    Alexander, A. T., Miller, K., & Fielding, S. (2015). Open for business: Universities,
    entrepreneurial academics and open innovation. International Journal of
    Innovation Management, 19(06), 1540013.
    Allen, T. J., & O'Shea, R. P. (Eds.). (2014). Building technology transfer within research
    universities: An entrepreneurial approach. Cambridge University Press.
    Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D., & Wright, M. (2018). Digital affordances, spatial
    affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strategic
    Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(1), 72-95.
    Arvanitis, S., Kubli, U., & Woerter, M. (2008). University-industry knowledge and
    technology transfer in Switzerland: What university scientists think about co-
    operation with private enterprises. Research Policy, 37(10), 1865-1883.
    Bagstad, K. J., Villa, F., Batker, D., Harrison-Cox, J., Voigt, B., & Johnson, G. W. (2014).
    From theoretical to actual ecosystem services: mapping beneficiaries and spatial flows in ecosystem service assessments. Ecology and Society, 19(2).
    Barba-Sánchez, V., & Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018). Entrepreneurial intention among
    engineering students: The role of entrepreneurship education. European Research
    on Management and Business Economics, 24(1), 53-61.
    Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2006). Entpreprenerial universities and technology transfer:
    A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic
    development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175-188.
    Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual design: defining customer-centered
    systems. Elsevier.
    Bozeman, B. (2000). Technology transfer and public policy: a review of research and
    theory. Research policy, 29(4-5), 627-655.
    Bradley, S. R., Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2013). Models and methods of university
    technology transfer. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, 9(6), 571-650.
    Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and
    analysis techniques. Public management review, 6(1), 21-53.
    Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health policy and
    planning, 15(3), 239-246.
    Clarysse, B., Tartari, V., & Salter, A. (2011). The impact of entrepreneurial capacity,
    experience and organizational support on academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1084-1093.
    Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business Review Press.
    Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Van de Velde, E., & Vohora, A. (2005). Spinning
    out new ventures: a typology of incubation strategies from European research
    institutions. Journal of Business venturing, 20(2), 183-216.
    Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of
    public research on industrial R&D. Management science, 48(1), 1-23.
    Cooke, P. (2001). Regional innovation systems, clusters, and the knowledge
    economy. Industrial and corporate change, 10(4), 945-974.
    Davis, J. P. (2016). The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating
    with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems. Administrative Science
    Quarterly, 61(4), 621-661.
    Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and
    Entrepreneurialism in Universities: is the local dimension still
    important?. Comparative education, 37(1), 7-20.
    D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the
    factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?. Research policy, 36(9), 1295-1313.
    Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?. Research policy, 32(2), 209-227.
    Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21(2-3), 198-233.
    Etzkowitz, H. (2004). The evolution of the entrepreneurial university. International
    Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(1), 64-77.
    Etzkowitz, H. (2016). The entrepreneurial university: vision and metrics. Industry and
    Higher Education, 30(2), 83-97.
    Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix--University-industry-
    government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development.
    Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29(2), 109-123.
    Feldman, M. P., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J. E., & Burton, R. M. (2002). University technology
    transfer and the system of innovation. In Institutions and Systems in the Geography of Innovation (pp. 55-77). Springer, Boston, MA.
    Fontana, R., Geuna, A., & Matt, M. (2006). Factors affecting university–industry R&D
    projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling. Research
    policy, 35(2), 309-323.
    Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge
    university press.
    Friedman, A. L., & Miles, S. (2006). Stakeholders: Theory and practice. Oxford
    University Press on Demand.
    Garrido, P., Elbakidze, M., Angelstam, P., Plieninger, T., Pulido, F., & Moreno, G. (2017).
    Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: A case study from
    Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy, 60, 324-333.
    Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
    Gilsing, V., Bekkers, R., Freitas, I. M. B., & Van der Steen, M. (2011). Differences in
    technology transfer between science-based and development-based industries:
    Transfer mechanisms and barriers. Technovation, 31(12), 638-647.
    Good, M., Knockaert, M., Soppe, B., & Wright, M. (2018). The technology transfer
    ecosystem in academia. An organizational design perspective. Technovation. Grimble, R. J., Aglionby, J., & Quan, J. (1994). Tree resources and environmental policy: a stakeholder approach (Vol. 7). Natural Resources Institute.
    Goldstein, S. M., Johnston, R., Duffy, J., & Rao, J. (2002). The service concept: the
    missing link in service design research?. Journal of Operations management, 20(2),
    121-134.
    Grimaldi, R., Kenney, M., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2011). 30 years after Bayh–Dole:
    Reassessing academic entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 40(8), 1045-1057.
    Grosse, R. (1996). International technology transfer in services. Journal of international business studies, 27(4), 781-800.
    Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional
    competitiveness: evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. The Journal
    of Technology Transfer, 41(1), 105-131.
    Hayter, C. S. (2016). A trajectory of early-stage spinoff success: the role of knowledge
    intermediaries within an entrepreneurial university ecosystem. Small Business
    Economics, 47(3), 633-656.
    Hayter, C. S., & Link, A. N. (2015). On the economic impact of university proof of
    concept centers. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 178-183.
    Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2014). Contextual design: evolved. Synthesis Lectures on
    Human-Centered Informatics, 7(4), 1-91.
    Holtzblatt, K., & Beyer, H. (2016). Contextual design: Design for life. Morgan Kaufmann.
    Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J. B., & Wood, S. (2004). Rapid contextual design: a how-to
    guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier.
    Hsu, D. W., Shen, Y. C., Yuan, B. J., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful
    commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university
    technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25-39.
    Isenberg, D. (2014). What an entrepreneurship ecosystem actually is. Harvard Business Review, 5, 1-7.
    Jackson, D. J. (2011). What is an innovation ecosystem. National Science Foundation, 1.

    Jain, S., George, G., & Maltarich, M. (2009). Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating
    role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research policy, 38(6), 922-935.
    Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2016). Drivers of university-industry links: The case of
    knowledge-intensive business service firms in rural locations. Regional
    Studies, 50(8), 1330-1345.
    Karlsen, J. T. (2002). Project stakeholder management. Engineering Management Journal, 14(4), 19-24.
    Karam, G. M. (1994, August). Visualization using timelines. In Proceedings of the 1994 ACM SIGSOFT international symposium on Software testing and analysis (pp. 125-137). ACM.
    Krabel, S., & Mueller, P. (2009). What drives scientists to start their own company?: An
    empirical investigation of Max Planck Society scientists. Research Policy, 38(6),
    947-956.
    Lan, H., Zhang, C., & Li, H. (2008). An open design methodology for automotive
    electrical/electronic system based on quantum platform. Advances in Engineering
    Software, 39(6), 526-534.
    Lehmann, E. E., & Menter, M. (2016). University–industry collaboration and regional
    wealth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1284-1307.
    Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An
    empirical assessment. The journal of Technology transfer, 25(2), 111-133.
    Lin, R. T. (2007). Transforming Taiwan aboriginal cultural features into modern product
    design: A case study of a cross-cultural product design model. International
    Journal of Design, 1(2).
    Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2005). Generating science-based growth: An econometric
    analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university–industry
    technology transfer. European Journal of Finance, 11(3), 169-181.
    Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research policy, 31(6), 859-876.
    Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Key methods in
    geography, 117-132.
    Maietta, O. W. (2015). Determinants of university–firm R&D collaboration and its impact
    on innovation: A perspective from a low-tech industry. Research Policy, 44(7),
    1341-1359.
    Maurer, I., Bartsch, V., & Ebers, M. (2011). The value of intra-organizational social
    capital: How it fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies, 32(2), 157-185.
    McAdam, R., Miller, K., McAdam, M., & Teague, S. (2012). The development of
    University Technology Transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level:
    Lessons for the future. Technovation, 32(1), 57-67.
    Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in systems. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
    Publishing, 77-78.
    Meyers, A. D., & Pruthi, S. (2011). Academic entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial universities and biotechnology. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 17(4), 349-357.
    Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model:
    a stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265-287.
    Miller, K., Alexander, A., Cunningham, J. A., & Albats, E. (2018). Entrepreneurial
    academics and academic entrepreneurs: A systematic literature
    review. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1-3), 9-37.
    Mindruta, D. (2013). Value creation in university‐firm research collaborations: A matching
    approach. Strategic Management Journal, 34(6), 644-665.
    Mowery, D. C., & Shane, S. (2002). Introduction to the special issue on university entrepreneurship and technology transfer. Management Science, 48(1), v-ix.
    Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university–
    industry relationships drive economic growth. Research policy, 35(10), 1499-1508.
    Nicolaou, N., Shane, S., Cherkas, L., Hunkin, J., & Spector, T. D. (2008). Is the tendency
    to engage in entrepreneurship genetic?. Management Science, 54(1), 167-179.
    Nikiforou, A., Zabara, T., Clarysse, B., & Gruber, M. (2018). The Role of Teams in
    Academic Spin-Offs. Academy of Management Perspectives, 32(1), 78-103.
    OECD Publishing. (2010). OECD science, technology and industry outlook 2010. OECD
    Pub..
    Oh, D. S., Phillips, F., Park, S., & Lee, E. (2016). Innovation ecosystems: A critical
    examination. Technovation, 54, 1-6.
    Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., & Adebowale, B. A. (2017). University-industry collaboration as a
    determinant of innovation in Nigeria. Institutions and Economies, 21-46.
    Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., ... &
    Krabel, S. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the
    literature on university–industry relations. Research policy, 42(2), 423-442.
    Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open
    innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management
    Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
    Pfeffer, J. (1994). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Harvard
    Business Press.
    Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004). The knowledge economy. Annu. Rev. Sociol., 30,
    199-220.
    Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. The Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26-50.
    Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology
    licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic
    entrepreneurship. Journal of business venturing, 20(3), 291-311.
    Qu, M., Yu, S., Chen, D., Chu, J., & Tian, B. (2016). State-of-the-art of design, evaluation,
    and operation methodologies in product service systems. Computers in industry, 77, 1-14.
    Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161-175.
    Rasmussen, E., Mosey, S., & Wright, M. (2014). The influence of university departments
    on the evolution of entrepreneurial competencies in spin-off ventures. Research
    Policy, 43(1), 92-106.
    Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities facilitate academic spin-offs?
    An entrepreneurial competency perspective. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(5), 782-799.
    Raum, S. (2018). A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in
    ecosystem services research: Stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in
    the UK. Ecosystem Services, 29, 170-184.
    Reed, M. S. (2008). Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature
    review. Biological conservation, 141(10), 2417-2431.
    Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2011). Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
    Saunders, M., Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., 2007. Research Methods for Business Students. Financial Times, Prentice Hall.
    Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the
    front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS.
    Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., & Fröhlich, J. (2006). Knowledge interactions between
    universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants. In Innovation, Networks, and Knowledge Spillovers (pp. 135-166). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
    Shane, S. (2010). Born entrepreneurs, born leaders: How your genes affect your work life.
    Oxford University Press.
    Sieger, P., & Minola, T. (2017). The family's financial support as a “Poisoned gift”: A
    family embeddedness perspective on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small
    Business Management, 55, 179-204.
    Siegel, D. S., Veugelers, R., & Wright, M. (2007). Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications. Oxford review of economic policy, 23(4), 640-660.
    Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational
    practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an
    exploratory study. Research policy, 32(1), 27-48.
    Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2007). Intellectual property: the assessment. Oxford Review of
    Economic Policy, 23(4), 529-540.
    Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2015). Academic entrepreneurship: time for a
    rethink?. British Journal of Management, 26(4), 582-595.
    Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
    entrepreneurial university. The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2715 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218-4319.
    Slaughter, S., Slaughter, S. A., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new
    economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press.
    Stickdorn, M., Schneider, J., Andrews, K., & Lawrence, A. (2011). This is service design
    thinking: Basics, tools, cases(Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
    Swiss Federal Council (24. June. 2015). Swiss Roadmap for Research Infrastructures in
    view of the ERI Dispatch 2017-2020. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi1pvCdkKHfAhVJhbwKHSBwB9IQFjABegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbfi.admin.ch%2Fdam%2Fsbfi%2Fen%2Fdokumente%2Fschweizer_roadmapfuerforschungsinfrastrukturenimhinblickaufdiebf.pdf.download.pdf%2Fswiss_roadmap_forresearchinfrastructuresinviewoftheeridispatch20.pdf&usg=AOvVaw32b1V26HVZgTVtjX0jYjI_
    Technical University of Munich (2018). Homepage of TUM. Retrieved from
    https://www.tum.de/nc/en/homepage/
    Tijssen, R. J. (2006). Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation. Research Policy, 35(10), 1569-1585.
    Tran, G. B., Tran, T. A., Tran, N. K., Alrifai, M., & Kanhabua, N. (2013, August).
    Leveraging learning to rank in an optimization framework for timeline
    summarization. In SIGIR 2013 Workshop on Time-aware Information Access (TAIA.
    Van Looy, B., Landoni, P., Callaert, J., Van Pottelsberghe, B., Sapsalis, E., & Debackere,
    K. (2011). Entrepreneurial effectiveness of European universities: An empirical
    assessment of antecedents and trade-offs. Research Policy, 40(4), 553-564.
    Viegas, F. B., & Wattenberg, M. (2006). Communication-minded visualization: A call to
    action. IBM Systems Journal, 45(4), 801.
    Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge
    transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–
    industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.
    Wang, Y., Hu, R., Li, W., & Pan, X. (2016). Does teaching benefit from university–
    industry collaboration? Investigating the role of academic commercialization and
    engagement. Scientometrics, 106(3), 1037-1055.
    Ward, S., & Chapman, C. (2008). Stakeholders and uncertainty management in
    projects. Construction management and economics, 26(6), 563-577.
    Wixon, D., Holtzblatt, K., & Knox, S. (1990, March). Contextual design: an emergent
    view of system design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
    Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 329-336). ACM.
    Wong, P. K. (2003). From using to creating technology: the evolution of Singapore’s national innovation system and the changing role of public policy. Competitiveness, FDI and technological activity in East Asia, 191-238.
    Wong, P. K. (Ed.). (2011). Academic entrepreneurship in Asia: The role and impact of
    universities in national innovation systems. Edward Elgar Publishing.
    Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, innovation and economic
    growth: Evidence from GEM data. Small business economics, 24(3), 335-350.
    Wong, P. K., & Singh, A. (2010). University patenting activities and their link to the quantity and quality of scientific publications. Scientometrics, 83(1), 271-294.
    Wolstenholme, D. (2016). Service Design: From Insight to Implementation
    Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Singh, A. (2007). Towards an “entrepreneurial university”
    model to support knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National
    University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6), 941-958.
    Wood, M. S. (2011). A process model of academic entrepreneurship. Business
    Horizons, 54(2), 153-161.
    Wright, M., Birley, S., & Mosey, S. (2004). Entrepreneurship and university technology
    transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3-4), 235-246.
    Zhang, Y., & O'Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: university websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. Critical Discourse Studies, 10(4), 468-485
    Zheng, P. (2010). The" Second Academic Revolution": Interpretations of Academic
    Entrepreneurship. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 40(2), 3
    Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and
    future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1019-1042.

    下載圖示 校內:2024-12-16公開
    校外:2024-12-16公開
    QR CODE